Sects, religion & politics

Menu

NZ Christians warn of gay marriage ‘cultural vandalism’

“There was a party atmosphere and cheers of jubilation as New Zealand last night made history by legalising same-sex marriage – while outside Parliament, opponents of the law change were licking their wounds.

Christian lobby group Family First, which led the charge against the bill, labelled it “shot gun” legislation and accused MPs of an “arrogant act of cultural vandalism”.

Labour MP Su’a William Sio, who also opposed the bill, was more tempered, saying he represented many of Labour’s Pacific supporters in his decision to speak out against the bill.

“From the outset I said this was not an issue that was a priority to members of my constituency,” Mr Sio told National Radio.

“Those same people are asking me, ‘well how many jobs were created as a result of this, does it raise income levels?’.”

The passage of the bill by 77 votes to 44 was all but a done deal last night after previous votes in the process revealed overwhelming support.

But there was still plenty of raw emotion in the debate, lightened by humour and some regrets, before MPs exercised a rare conscience vote.

ACT leader John Banks, who as a former National MP was a leading opponent of decriminalising homosexuality in the 1980s, admitted his views had changed since he described the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform bill as evil and sickening.

After “three decades, and 10 Parliaments, I have had time to reflect,” Mr Banks told Parliament.

“To reflect on what I said, and what I did.

“If I knew then, what I have learned since, I would have acted differently.”

Queues started forming outside Parliament hours before last night’s debate got underway and an extra screening room was set up to handle the overflow.

Around the country, people watched the vote screening live on big screen.

There were some harsh words, mainly for some of the bill’s staunch Christian opponents, who bombarded MPs in the final days before the vote with scripture and warnings about rotting in hell.

There were also angry words between MPs, with National’s Tau Henare accusing his former leader in NZ First, Winston Peters, of being a shyster and pandering to rednecks.

But the issue also bought together MPs from all sides of the House in a rare show of cross-party activism.

Labour MP Louisa Wall, who promoted the bill, said allowing same sex couples to marry meant a lot to gay couples.

“In our society the meaning of marriage is universal – it’s a declaration of love and commitment to a special person.” she said.

Green MP Kevin Hague was almost lost for words after the vote but said this was the culmination of 27 years of work since homosexuality was decriminalised in 1986.

New Zealand has become the 13th country to legalise gay marriage but it will be August before the first same-sex weddings can be held.

The terms “bride” and “groom” will remain but people will be able to opt to use “partner” instead.

There are safeguards in the bill to prevent marriage celebrants from being forced to marry couples if it is against their religion.”

Related

Post navigation

Since homosexually has changed in the law from being a criminal offence… isn’t there more evidence of homosexuality in our culture? Therefore you have proven my logic sound?

Gee, no shit, Sherlock. If something is illegal then it will be hidden. The Prohibition of the 20s got rid of public sales of alcohol yet it thrived in the blackmarket and actually increased alcoholism.

Just say what you mean.

So laws like the criminalisation of homosexuals kept our society safe and made it grow.

Fairly self explanatory.

You want homosexuality criminalised.

That’s the underlying argument you are using.

Thankfully John Dickson makes more sense then you do.

Btw we hit 23 million last week.

If we allow gay marriage our population will undoubtedly go backwards according to your warped deduction none of which is based in reality.

Since homosexually has changed in the law from being a criminal offence… isn’t there more evidence of homosexuality in our culture? Therefore you have proven my logic sound?

You would think that if they make it more acceptable to be gay that surely the occurrence of this happening in our society would increase and therefore the birth rate would fall. I’m not saying by how much… I’m just saying it would.

What’s not sound in this logic… your argument of my logic has holes in it everywhere and you keep proving my logic correct every time you answer back.

The reason this keeps happening is my logic is rooted in hypothesis not in reality. Could it be wrong in the future were the marriage act to change. For sure… that is why it’s a hypothesis.

Have I come to the wrong conclusions based on the past. The answer (thanks to you pointing our our previous laws on gay marriage) would trend towards my conclusions being correct… however, hypothetical they may be.

“The logic that is clearly missing is that if you change the law to allow something that was prohibited… whether it be speed,tax laws, drugs or anything else then it encourages people to change there BEHAVIOUR?”

So ideally we should go back to when homosexuality was a criminal offence. Since by your logic, the decriminalising of homosexuality has encouraged people to take up that ‘lifestyle’.

You tell me what the purpose of that law was and why it was changed?

There’s holes everywhere in your logic. You still think that homosexual marriage will lower the nation’s birth rate.

I’m glad we cleared up that gay people can’t make babies. I also agree that current gay couples will not be reproducing. TICKING OFF THE BOX’S SLOWLY.

The logic that is clearly missing is that if you change the law to allow something that was prohibited… whether it be speed,tax laws, drugs or anything else then it encourages people to change there BEHAVIOUR?

For example if they changed the maximum speed to be 130 rather then 110… would you go faster on the highway?

Or another example is if Gun were readily available (e.g. America) what do you think the case of mass shootings occuring would be in comparison to a nation where Gun Laws are strict (e.g. Australia)?

A law therefore sets a precedence of acceptable behaviour. There is nothing wrong with this logic… you only need to look to the 10 commandments to see that God’s law encouraged certain types of behaviours.

I have used deductive reasoning based on other circumstances of the law being changed to conclude what would happen should they change the marriage law. This may not happen and I’m happy to admit that this is deductive reasoning and is not reasoning based on research statistics. However, if you couldn’t work that out for yourself you obviously don’t live Australia;-)

The unsound part of your logic is that gay people aren’t going to be reproducing ANYWAY. How letting them get married will reduce the birthrate makes no sense. Do you think heterosexual people will turn gay?

Laws are made by governments who are elected by the people, for the people.

So you agree that my example is sound in logic, its just hard to swallow and wouldn’t be a great argument to put out there to the general public if you were Tony Abbott for example… but in essence… it could happen is that right?

You said… “Also you seem to suggest if gays can marry that our birth rate will go down!!!!”

Last time I checked when a man and a man get there thing on (have intercourse)… it doesn’t make a baby. What’s unsound about that logic… or did I miss something in biology class.

All that said I think you missed the purpose of the example which was to explain the purpose of the law.

So if you disagree with me what is the purpose of the Australian Law in our society? Thats the real issue.

Therefore, in order for our nation to keep growing… babies need to be made… and this is most commonly done between a man and a women (although medical technology can help us fall pregnant these days without intercourse)

That’s a fairly long bow to draw. To argue that we need to keep heterosexual marriage in a world which is going to face some very serious overpopulation issues in the near future is absurd.

Also you seem to suggest if gays can marry that our birth rate will go down!!!!

As we have strong Christian heritage… the politicians/law makers were creating laws that supported there Christian views… such as the marriage law. The more secular we become the more certain laws become open to attack as the general population may not accept the traditional views held. (this is what I was trying to say)

I’m glad you agree with me that the issue is a definition problem (at least I think you agree).

As I said to a Gay friend on FB “For me it would be like trying to define a Ferrari as a Jet Plane. Yes they both fly… but the definition of flying is different for each of them. If you change the definition then all you do is make the original definition obscure and it looses its current meaning. Therefore what would be the point of using the word flying to describe one or the other if you classified a ferrari as a jet plane.”

He couldn’t have agreed more.

Personally, I define a LGBT relationship as a Civil Union and Marriage between a Man and a Women. Therefore, there is no confusion. Everyone understand what each one means and that they are unique.

Why should one want to be other other when they get all the same rights? That’s my question.

As for church’s having their own special rules on marriage… this is clearly true.

Lets face it… Australia has slowly moved away from a Christian nation to be Secular nation. So this means there will be legislation that is overtly Christian such as the traditional view on Marriage laws.

Well that didn’t make sense. If Australia is becoming more secular you would think the opposite.

Re your definition argument.

The state has always defined the rules of marriage whether that is based on age, family marriages (eg cousins), mixed marriages (black/white, Catholic/ Protestant, Christian/non-Christian), marriage of divorcees, arranged marriages (which were the vast bulk), monogamous, polygamous or polyamorous.

There are many polygamous Christians in Africa which historically was as much about tribal survival.

Churches have always had their own ‘special’ rules such as refusing to marry divorcees, as well as refusing to celebrate interfaith or interdenominational marriages which are perfectly legal under Australian law or even refusing to marry as the Christian minister didn’t deem them to be Christian enough or because the couple were living together..

Its sad that Christians seem to have no way to talk about this fairly without putting there foot in there mouths and swallowing it whole. Because of this I’m going to do something I rarely do and not use the Bible to answer this issue.

Lets face it… Australia has slowly moved away from a Christian nation to be Secular nation. So this means there will be legislation that is overtly Christian such as the traditional view on Marriage laws. The problem is that LGBT couples (and other sexual orientations such as the polyamorous) feel that the current marriage legislation discriminates against them… even though they currently have all the same rights as a hetro-sexual couple. My question to this would be “Is this really discrimination or is it a definitional issue?”

For me its a definitional issue. Therefore, every definition of marriage (no matter whether it changes or not) will discriminate against those that don’t fit the definition. I can understand the longing for LGBT couples to have this definition changed (and in no way put them down) but for me I believe that the best way to ensure a healthy society into the future is for the marriage relationship to stay defined as between a man and a women.

Very tough issue and I know much of Australia would disagree with me on this one, yet I always ask myself why we have laws? The answer for me is to help society grow and keep it safe (The movie SAFE is a great example of lawlessness). Therefore, in order for our nation to keep growing… babies need to be made… and this is most commonly done between a man and a women (although medical technology can help us fall pregnant these days without intercourse) Once born the safest environment I believe for a child to be raised in is that with a male and female who role model the genders in the confines of marriage. Are there other ways… absolutely; however, I believe this is the best way based on its track record.

I hope my views on the marriage issue don’t seem bigoted but are rooted in the purpose of law and takes into account the issues of discrimination.

This video express my views from a more Christian perspective and is a must watch!!!